I'm a known Obama supporter on here. I also have a long standing belief that gun control legislation usually doesn't work and besides...and this is not a small thing in the discussion..........the constitution is clear, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Thats why even though I don't own guns or hunt that I've been a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

I understand that the constitution is also very clear on free speech but we restrict free speech in some circumstances (libel, yelling fire etc.). Thats the test that I've always used in evaluating any gun control legislation. If we allow and support the real ugly and reprehensible parts of free speech such as the Nazi's marching in a Jewish neighborhood then the Democrats must do the same with allowing gun owners that freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Republicans have to be open to some limitations on gun control along the same lines as the limits we put on free speech.

The compromise:

Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.

Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.

Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.

Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)

Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.

Closing the gun show loophole.

#1 and #2 are easy. No one should be against those proposals.
#3 There is no need reason for an individual citizen to own armor piercing bullets.
#4 This is the key. The Ft. Hood, Va. tech, Gabby Giffords shooter were all stopped when their ammo clips ran out and they stop to reload. We can limit the body count if they have to stop to reload a clip even if it takes only 3-5 seconds.
#5 Gun owners should already be securing their firearms so that kids, mentally ill, suicidal people don't have access to their guns. This would have prevented Shady Hook.
#6 You buy a gun at your local shop they perform a background check but buy at a gun show they don't? Thats idiotic. If there is a background check, it applies to gun shows.

What got left off the table:

Assault weapons ban. It was already in effect for 10 years. It didn't lower crime. It doesn't meet the first amendment Nazi's marching test. The constitution is about the rights to own guns, not how many bullets that gun can fire.

How do you forbid someone who suffers from, but hasn't been diagnosed as "mentally ill" from purchasing a gun?

What is the threshold for "mentally ill" and who defines it? Would someone who is paranoid that the government is going to take over their freedoms if they don't have their military grade guns/weapons qualify as mentally ill? It certainly does in my book. I consider that delusional thinking.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 25% of adults live with some type of mental illness and that 50% of the US population has a mental illness at some point in their life.

Does your proposal also mean that if someone in your household or family have a mental illness that you are prevented from having a gun as well? Remember, other members in your household will have access to the guns even if you aren't mentally ill. The Sandy Point shooter was mentally ill, his mother wasn't; he shot up the school with her guns--which would be totally legal under your proposal.

Finally, the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent at all. In my estimation, stripping a person of their 4th Amendment Right to due process is far worse than stripping people of their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

I'll say this - no way should Lanza's mother have had guns unsecured knowing better than anyone else how batshit crazy her kid was. That is utterly and completely irresponsible. At a minimum she should have kept them in a safe, which he did not have access to. That's on her 100%.

How do you forbid someone who suffers from, but hasn't been diagnosed as "mentally ill" from purchasing a gun?

What is the threshold for "mentally ill" and who defines it? Would someone who is paranoid that the government is going to take over their freedoms if they don't have their military grade guns/weapons qualify as mentally ill? It certainly does in my book. I consider that delusional thinking.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 25% of adults live with some type of mental illness and that 50% of the US population has a mental illness at some point in their life.

Does your proposal also mean that if someone in your household or family have a mental illness that you are prevented from having a gun as well? Remember, other members in your household will have access to the guns even if you aren't mentally ill. The Sandy Point shooter was mentally ill, his mother wasn't; he shot up the school with her guns--access to those guns would be totally legal under your proposal.

Finally, the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent at all. In my estimation, stripping a person of their 4th Amendment Right to due process is far worse than stripping people of their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

These are all extremely good questions.

Very difficult questions to answer, as well. But tough answers need to be made.

Although I don't understand the incorporation of the 4th amendment into it. Mentally ill people are being screened in BRC's proposal, not imprisoned.

You're saying no background checks for something like 40% of gun purchases?

Ive been to a ton of gun shows. There is no way to know that number you ****ing moron. First, who would know how many were sold total at a show on a given day. That is not tracked. Second, no one is aware of a private sale except for the two people involved. This is the sort of bullshit that ruins your credibility. Make up any number you like.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Ive been to a ton of gun shows. There is no way to know that number you ****ing moron. First, who would know how many were sold total at a show on a given day. That is not tracked. Second, no one is aware of a private sale except for the two people involved. This is the sort of bullshit that ruins your credibility. Make up any number you like.

I really have to agree here. Saying you can put an exact number on private gun sales is like saying you can put an exact number on how many people bummed a cigarette in the US yesterday.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcpasco

And I don't know how you could regulate private sales without completely destroying the 2nd amendment.